Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: dtango on August 14, 2011, 01:17:18 PM
-
Infusing the topic with areo-geek maths of power-to-weight, wing-loading, & max level speed...grizz, I see your venn diagram and raise you a....
...Quasi Performance Meter.... :devil
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/QPM1.jpg)
Here's how you read it.....
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/QPM-explain.jpg)
As for "EZ" vs. "hard", here's my take on it :devil :devil :devil
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/QPM-ez.jpg)
Please debate among yourselves...
-
Hm, looked good until I saw bf110c placement relative to B-239, A6Ms, etc.
Needs some refinements, IMO.
-
You're the light in the darkness on this board Tango! :) Sniff. :cry
Only problem of your meter is the constant prop eff which causes discrepensies like the placement of the I-16 on your diagram but generally, it works very well. :)
-
Where is ballistics on this?
What good is a 109K4 performance wise if the pilot can't aim the gun?
-
Where is ballistics on this?
What good is a 109K4 performance wise if the pilot can't aim the gun?
I doubt Tango was entirely serious with this. ;) But yeh, it doesn't take armament into account which is very important attribute for a fighter. :)
-
I doubt Tango was entirely serious with this. ;) But yeh, it doesn't take armament into account which is very important attribute for a fighter. :)
:)
-
Where is ballistics on this?
What good is a 109K4 performance wise if the pilot can't aim the gun?
Get real close, release tater = BOOM :)
-
zomg what will be the next?
Turn rate, radius, climb, speed, roll - thats a five-dimensional cube : )
-
When one talks about EZ mode, they are talking about EZ mode for most players. If most player flew their planes to their planes strengths and fought with them in there 'element' I think the faster planes would generally fall under EZ mode, but that is not the case, most players almost instinctively go for angles. Maybe a better graph would compare optimal corner speeds or optimal sustained turn speeds. Also plane 'handling', although hard to quantify makes a huge difference. For example a k4 or tempest when it is slow requires much more throttle attention than say a spit 5 due to the torque.
-
Chart weights everything equally and doesn't even try to put values to some characteristics.
-
Dtango, can I get a copy of the data you used to make this graph? I would be curious to change the graph from 2D to 3D and separate T/W and S/W on different axis? Can you also add the ME163 and ME262?
-
EZ to fly or EZ to get a kill with or EZ to survive or EZ to turn or what? lol
What makes a plane EZ mode? THAT is the question. :rock
-
I,m not finding teh P-20 on the chart :(
-
EZ to fly or EZ to get a kill with or EZ to survive or EZ to turn or what? lol
What makes a plane EZ mode? THAT is the question. :rock
-
dtango,
The Mosquito Mk VI's max speed at sea level is 357mph in AH, not the 348-349mph you seem to have it placed at.
By your chart that would make it one of the easiest aircraft in the game. I am not sure that is really correct though.
-
Chart weights everything equally and doesn't even try to put values to some characteristics.
Ok, because I feel that the average MA player will resort to fighting for angles instead of utilizing their planes advantage... I have created a chart that compares acceleration and turn radius.
The shorter the acceleration time and tighter turn radius, the easier the plane is to 'fly' for the avg ma player.
The data was taken from here http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php (http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php)
(http://i55.tinypic.com/35c4qs9.png)
-
No Brewster....full flaps...most noobs don't know where the flaps button is until the end of year 1 much less how to use full flaps effectively on most aircraft. Some aircraft only HAVE full flaps...others have notches that allow better performance...but you are getting there. Chart needs to be labeled though...some icons are the same.
-
No Brewster...
give me the data, I'll drop it in....
-
Where is ballistics on this?
What good is a 109K4 performance wise if the pilot can't aim the gun?
That's rather the thing with that plane, fortunately MOST folks who fly it can't hit squat
-
g14 is missing dtango :old:
-
2bighorn: i'll relook at the numbers. Could have fat fingered something.
wmaker: :D.. as for prop eff, bah, who needs it ;).... and you're right, the chart is only quasi-serious :D.
grizz: meh, guns are overrated unless you've maneuvered to where you can use 'em ;). My QPM chart obviously deals with the maneuvering part, not the shooting part.
fox: let me clean it up and I'll make the data available.
cobia / coombs: I'll add the A-20 & 109G-14 when I get a chance to...
karnak: yeah, the Mossie seemed a little out of place to me too. It's what the numbers say, but it mostly has to do with how I'm combining P/W and S/W together. (The P-38 behaves similarly too). This chart, QPM-1 is basically S/W scaled by power along the x-axis. The mossie apparently has power in spades. What it doesn't tell you is a true P/W ratio or true excess power (Ps) which factors in the power-required bit of it. I have a QPM-2 chart that's basis P/W * S/W * P that's interesting that I may post to show the difference.
Ardy: my QPM chart includes proxies for instantaneous turn radius and excess energy for sustained turning. Generally the lower down and to the right an airplane is, the better the turn radius. The more up and to the right, the better the excess energy for sustained maneuvers.
-
hehheh thats great stuff!!!! :D :aok
-
Ardy: my QPM chart includes proxies for instantaneous turn radius and excess energy for sustained turning. Generally the lower down and to the right an airplane is, the better the turn radius. The more up and to the right, the better the excess energy for sustained maneuvers.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/QPM-ez.jpg)
dtango, your QPM chart would indicate that the tempest is the easiest to to fly, but I would argue that for most noobs the i-16 is much easier to fly and fight with, that being said, should your 'EZ arrows' be revised to be an 'EZ' circle in the lower right bottom? (ie lots of excess power and great turning abilities).
(http://i54.tinypic.com/wtd3iw.png)
-
the only thing is it takes more then just 2 qualities to quantify "easy" mode
so this does not cut it
need to add
max speed at different ALTS
max cornering speed
slow speed maneuverability
medium speed maneuverability
max speed maneuverability
best flap speed
max speed
gun lethality-ballistics-amount of ammo-
visibility
durability
max roll rate at different ALTS
stability during Stall (is this even possible :headscratch:)
max speed controls lock up/get heavy at
did I miss anything?
-
I think we can all agree the P40b sucks major arse
-
I think we can all agree the P40b sucks major arse
:lol
I do not think anyone will dispute this fact!
-
I looked up some of the planes I run across in the late war arena and made a 3D plot. The three axis are max sea level speed (mph), acceleration from 150-200 (in seconds), and best turn radius using flaps (ft). I got the data from DokGonzo's site. There are all sorts of ways to analyze planes, but I figured I would just use something similar to what dtango used. The attributes I used may not match up exactly with dtango's variables, but hopefully they are close enough.
The 3D plot can be broken into 8 quadrants. Of the planes that I used, there were 4 that ended up being in the quadrant representing the best of acceleration, speed, and turn radius. These planes were the 190F-4, Ki-84, La-7, and Spit 16. Note that I did not use all planes because I didn't want to spend alot of time on this.
I didn't spend much time cleaning up the graphs, so they are a little hard to read.
http://www.mediafire.com/?xz23awi2455m403 (http://www.mediafire.com/?xz23awi2455m403)
http://www.mediafire.com/?vrgg7lxsp490irg (http://www.mediafire.com/?vrgg7lxsp490irg)
http://www.mediafire.com/?ekms08b7ycibcpt (http://www.mediafire.com/?ekms08b7ycibcpt)
http://www.mediafire.com/?ici19b20k960nks (http://www.mediafire.com/?ici19b20k960nks)
-
Meant to have the graphs show up in my reply (never do this). Not sure how to do that I guess.
-
Meant to have the graphs show up in my reply (never do this). Not sure how to do that I guess.
They have to be posted to photobucket as jpeg's or png's and then you link to them, select the link and click the image button in the reply.
-
the only thing is it takes more then just 2 qualities to quantify "easy" mode
so this does not cut it
need to add
max speed at different ALTS
max cornering speed
slow speed maneuverability
medium speed maneuverability
max speed maneuverability
best flap speed
max speed
gun lethality-ballistics-amount of ammo-
visibility
durability
max roll rate at different ALTS
stability during Stall (is this even possible :headscratch:)
max speed controls lock up/get heavy at
did I miss anything?
Low speed stability
Difficulty of Ballistics
-
Thanks for help Grizz. Hopefully it works this time.
(http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b475/4fox/Slide4.jpg)
(http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b475/4fox/Slide3.jpg)
(http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b475/4fox/Slide2.jpg)
(http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b475/4fox/Slide1.jpg)
-
How did you make the graphs, I original wanted to use 3 axis too, (turn radius, acceleration, lethality)?
also, does anyone have the following stats on the brewster?
1) turn radius no flaps
2) turn radius full flaps
3) acceleration time from 200-250
4) lethality (hammer RtKh)
thanks
-
I made it in excel using an add-in that allows for a 3D scatterplot.
-
I made it in excel using an add-in that allows for a 3D scatterplot.
Ty, in the post
does the second image show up(its dtagos graph with a transparent blue circle superimposed on part of it) for all of you? I ask because on one computer it did, on the other it failed to..
-
I,m not finding teh P-20 on the chart :(
Funny, I couldn't find the P-38 for some reason either. :)
-
Funny, I couldn't find the P-38 for some reason either. :)
You just ain't looking hard enough :). They be there!
-
Here's QPM-2...
Basis is combining S/W (inverse wing-loading), P/W (power-loading), and Power. QPM-1 uses a P*S/W factor with some scaling. It tends to inflate the anything that has two engines on it, Mossie, P-38's, 110's because of the amount of absolute power available for those aircraft. QPM-2 smooths that out it a bit.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/QPM2_overlay.jpg)
I've added performance topology curves for interest. This is to highlight different perspectives on what is "easier". I think a lot of the differences people have around what they consider easier or harder boils down to picking on the "extremophiles" for different categories. My topology curves are trying to demonstrate this. The topology curves represent increasing performance as they radiate out from the lowly P-40B. Toward the edges are where we find the extremophiles, the airplanes that dominate certain categories.
In Ardy's case, he highlighted the extremophile "turners" which reside toward the bottom edge of the topo map. Some folks will say the speed-demon bnz planes are EZ mode. These typically are the extremophiles "speeders" which reside near the top edge of the topo map. I suppose one argument could be that ANY aircraft that resides on the outer edges all around the topo map are the easier ones to fly because they dominate in their performance space.
Personally, the extremophiles that I believe are the "easiest" out of the all the extremophiles are the ones that reside toward to the top right because these aircraft have 3 major qualities that make them standout: 1) gobs of speed, 2) gobs of excess power to maneuver, accelerate, make up E very quickly with, 3) gobs of turning ability relative to others. IMHO this makes them the most "COMBAT FORGIVING" because they provide the pilot with the most options while providing lots of muscle in to quickly make up for mistakes.
oh....added the A-20G and 109G-14 :).
-
I suppose one argument could be that ANY aircraft that resides on the outer edges all around the topo map are the easier ones to fly because they dominate in their performance space.
well the p40B is at the left outer 'edge'.... :D j/k
it dominates the suckage?
-
Here's QPM-2...
Basis is combining S/W (inverse wing-loading), P/W (power-loading), and Power. QPM-1 uses a P*S/W factor with some scaling. It tends to inflate the anything that has two engines on it, Mossie, P-38's, 110's because of the amount of absolute power available for those aircraft. QPM-2 smooths that out it a bit.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/QPM2_overlay.jpg)
I've added performance topology curves for interest. This is to highlight different perspectives on what is "easier". I think a lot of the differences people have around what they consider easier or harder boils down to picking on the "extremophiles" for different categories. My topology curves are trying to demonstrate this. The topology curves represent increasing performance as they radiate out from the lowly P-40B. Toward the edges are where we find the extremophiles, the airplanes that dominate certain categories.
In Ardy's case, he highlighted the extremophile "turners" which reside toward the bottom edge of the topo map. Some folks will say the speed-demon bnz planes are EZ mode. These typically are the extremophiles "speeders" which reside near the top edge of the topo map. I suppose one argument could be that ANY aircraft that resides on the outer edges all around the topo map are the easier ones to fly because they dominate in their performance space.
Personally, the extremophiles that I believe are the "easiest" out of the all the extremophiles are the ones that reside toward to the top right because these aircraft have 3 major qualities that make them standout: 1) gobs of speed, 2) gobs of excess power to maneuver, accelerate, make up E very quickly with, 3) gobs of turning ability relative to others. IMHO this makes them the most "COMBAT FORGIVING" because they provide the pilot with the most options while providing lots of muscle in to quickly make up for mistakes.
oh....added the A-20G and 109G-14 :).
Once this gets "Ballistic Difficulty" adjusted I will endorse this system. :aok
I can't help but LOL about where the F4UC is on this though.
-
well the p40B is at the left outer 'edge'.... :D j/k
it dominates the suckage?
:)... it's at the "top of the mountain". You can interpret that however you'd like ;).
-
Thanks for help Grizz. Hopefully it works this time.
(http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b475/4fox/Slide4.jpg)
(http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b475/4fox/Slide3.jpg)
(http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b475/4fox/Slide2.jpg)
(http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b475/4fox/Slide1.jpg)
Nice graphic, although I don't think the three metrics you are using on your axes are evenly weighted nor the most important metrics in evaluating a fighter's difficulty.
-
Once this gets "Ballistic Difficulty" adjusted I will endorse this system. :aok
Can't think of a way to do this easily without being arbirtrary. I'm open to ideas though. But it can't require loads of research & maths- I'm too lazy :).
I can't help but LOL about where the F4UC is on this though.
Well, as they say, "your mileage will vary" :D.
-
Dtango, can I get a copy of the data you used to make this graph? I would be curious to change the graph from 2D to 3D and separate T/W and S/W on different axis?
I haven't forgotten. I'll make the data available when I have the time. Way to put in the effort on the 3D graphs. However there's a reason I chose not to do that. 3D graphs IMHO are really hard to interpret. Good for stuff where you want to understand surfaces or surface integrals.
Can you also add the ME163 and ME262?
I haven't forgotten this either. My charts or based on P/W though. Unfortunately jets and rockets don't have constant power like their piston-engine brothers. This presents challenges to presenting the data.
-
Can't think of a way to do this easily without being arbirtrary. I'm open to ideas though. But it can't require loads of research & maths- I'm too lazy :).
Well, as they say, "your mileage will vary" :D.
Well based on your graph metrics the Ballistics adjustment will be slightly arbitrary but I suggest just taking a ratio from the each axis to slide down the aircraft at a 45 degree angle based on the adjustment. What should the adjustment be for each plane? Here's my breakdown of the big ones...
For example...
109K4 = 0.85
G14 = 0.85
Ta152 = 0.90 (Since it does have 20 mms to pack punch)
F4UC = 1.10
Tempest = 1.10
Typhoon = 1.10
HurriC = 1.05 (Not much ammo)
Spit8 = 1.10
Spit9 = 1.10
Spit16 = 1.10
Moss = 1.10
To make it fair, We have to come up with an equation based on Ammo Quantity, ammo lethality, and ballistic difficulty.
-
Very cool stuff gents. When I get home I am going to do a cusory check on ENY values to see where things stand. Grizz, in the Army we use what they call "battlefield calculus". Part of that is assigning relative values to things. Out of curiosity, what is your "1.0"? I believe there are two stats to the numbers. To obtain "1.0":
1. What is the most common gun package or "single burst" similar damage package? = 1.0 (1 second burst of 6 x .50 similar to 1 second 2 x Hispano and 4 x .303 etc..)
2. What is a common (arbitrary) H/P for the system? = 1.0
Say most guys average a 6% on H/P, what number would you assign to the MG-131 vice the Mk-108...etc.
Just some thoughts. Very enjoyable thread, as much fun in an intellectual way (similar to the infamous Gaston thread).
-
Very cool stuff gents. When I get home I am going to do a cusory check on ENY values to see where things stand. Grizz, in the Army we use what they call "battlefield calculus". Part of that is assigning relative values to things. Out of curiosity, what is your "1.0"? I believe there are two stats to the numbers. To obtain "1.0":
1. What is the most common gun package or "single burst" similar damage package? = 1.0 (1 second burst of 6 x .50 similar to 1 second 2 x Hispano and 4 x .303 etc..)
2. What is a common (arbitrary) H/P for the system? = 1.0
Say most guys average a 6% on H/P, what number would you assign to the MG-131 vice the Mk-108...etc.
Just some thoughts. Very enjoyable thread, as much fun in an intellectual way (similar to the infamous Gaston thread).
My ballistics 1.0 is the P51D.
I feel D9 is close to 1.0 but slightly more difficult, based also in part due to visibility which is another factor :/ I'd say D9 is like 0.97 or something.
-
Hats off to all....I just got a call from Skuzzy...he and four other office personnel are takin the day off because the BBS is actually being used for something fun or productive...HiTech is in shock and is lying down for just a bit.
-
Hats off to all....I just got a call from Skuzzy...he and four other office personnel are takin the day off because the BBS is actually being used for something fun or productive...HiTech is in shock and is lying down for just a bit.
Hopefully I can use this as credit towards a future BBS meltdown.
-
Ardy: my QPM chart includes proxies for instantaneous turn radius and excess energy for sustained turning. Generally the lower down and to the right an airplane is, the better the turn radius. The more up and to the right, the better the excess energy for sustained maneuvers.
Tango, I see your point. You make no distinction b/w the "energy" and "angles" fighters of E-M diagram analysis but rather rate how much overage each has in it's particular forte. This makes decent sense yet I agree with Ardy that energy fighting a s a rule is more demanding of the pilot since it requires at-times counterintuitive maneuvering (i.e., I agree the knee-jerk noob thing to do is to go for angle).
I like your topological approach. You can almost chop the isoperfs (coining here) into an upper and lower for angle/energy. Notably the Spit XVI splits the difference so well that you'd have a hard time binning it.
Why those particular exponentials on the critical synthetic X, btw? The selection of those strikes as unnecessary since I see no correlative fit with X - i.e., why select a synthetic critical x abscissa cut from whole cloth? Those exponents seem to buy you nothing in terms of correlation...
Otherrwise, it's good to see an active mind applying some analytical tools.
-
Hopefully I can use this as credit towards a future BBS meltdown.
At the very least he won't "accidentally" change the ballistics on your K4 for month.
BTW...I'm on American Airlines WiFi on my flight to KSC, MO....the in-flight magazine has guess-what on the cover???? Yep. Lil Red and a cornhusker cheerleader....they apparently think there is something interesting going on in Nebraska...pffft...
Boomer Sooner
Assi- LSU is going to get the absolute piss kicked out of them by Oregon.
-
I wonder how this will look on the Vinkwan-Waystin Graph? :D
-
I wonder how this will look on the Vinkwan-Waystin Graph? :D
Cheap and pitiful...
-
Cheap and pitiful...
I was thinking representative and enlightening... :D
-
I will admit that the K4 is relatively easy to aim, once you spend countless months and hours in frustration training yourself to approach aiming in an entirely different light.
Spits are easy to aim without much thought at all into the process.
-
Tango, I see your point. You make no distinction b/w the "energy" and "angles" fighters of E-M diagram analysis but rather rate how much overage each has in it's particular forte. This makes decent sense yet I agree with Ardy that energy fighting a s a rule is more demanding of the pilot since it requires at-times counterintuitive maneuvering (i.e., I agree the knee-jerk noob thing to do is to go for angle).
I like your topological approach. You can almost chop the isoperfs (coining here) into an upper and lower for angle/energy. Notably the Spit XVI splits the difference so well that you'd have a hard time binning it.
Why those particular exponentials on the critical synthetic X, btw? The selection of those strikes as unnecessary since I see no correlative fit with X - i.e., why select a synthetic critical x abscissa cut from whole cloth? Those exponents seem to buy you nothing in terms of correlation...
Otherrwise, it's good to see an active mind applying some analytical tools.
all fighting is
"energy" fighting
I must have missed were Ardy said that noobs go for angles...that is something I completely disagree with, only someone who has been taught about angles goes for angles, a noob puts his nose on a con and just fires away....no angles, no thought about ACM or even BFM.
-
It's way easier to just use shuffler's guide......
Mans plane- p38
Just plain stupid- hurri1, p40
Trainer/sissy rides- the rest
-
I will admit that the K4 is relatively easy to aim, once you spend countless months and hours in frustration training yourself to approach aiming in an entirely different light.
Spits are easy to aim without much thought at all into the process.
Yes they are...much like how easy Cornhuskers are to beat...at just about anything. In fact, they have found a new place to be the whipping boy...yes, I said boy.
-
all fighting is
"energy" fighting
I must have missed were Ardy said that noobs go for angles...that is something I completely disagree with, only someone who has been taught about angles goes for angles, a noob puts his nose on a con and just fires away....no angles, no thought about ACM or even BFM.
I'd refer you to USAF tactical/Bad Boy E-M diagrams. In any given matchup and per the E-M, one opponent can be classified as the energy fighter, the other the angles fighter. See, for ref: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=96366.15
In this first example, the A-5 is clearly the energy fighter, the Spit V the angles fighter. Sometimes, however, distinguishing can be tricky, depending on how the E-M overlaps. Non e of this diminishes the value of the E-M though.
And here's the link to BadBoy's tutorial: http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html Note that I'm not disagreeing that "all fighting is energy fighting". That's true in a colloquial sense that energy managmeent is key. However, I was referrring to something much more specific than that - the E-M diagram or "envelope" as it's more commonly known. Have a look. I keep pushing Badboy for more comparison E-M charts but he only indulges me occasionally.
-
Yes they are...much like how easy Cornhuskers are to beat...at just about anything. In fact, they have found a new place to be the whipping boy...yes, I said boy.
Now you've done it. :furious
-
Now you've done it. :furious
I was my last Hispano round...I can't argue the Spit anymore.
-
Tango, I see your point. You make no distinction b/w the "energy" and "angles" fighters of E-M diagram analysis but rather rate how much overage each has in it's particular forte.
Well...truth be known I totally aero-geek-out on E-M analysis. However the cost/benefit of geeking-out vs. mind-numbing data collection & maths exponentially increases the fun suckage. :cry :cry :cry
....yet I agree with Ardy that energy fighting a s a rule is more demanding of the pilot since it requires at-times counterintuitive maneuvering (i.e., I agree the knee-jerk noob thing to do is to go for angle).
I quite agree. However does noobage-ness = "EZ"? IMHO, they aren't the same thing.
I like your topological approach. You can almost chop the isoperfs (coining here) into an upper and lower for angle/energy. Notably the Spit XVI splits the difference so well that you'd have a hard time binning it.
I quite like the term "isoperfs"! :aok I tried harder than I wanted to auto-plot various forms of isoperfs like your suggestion. Couldn't think of a way to do so on the QPM dimensions so I manually drew 'em for now. Definitely various ways to geek-out here too but it escapes me how to do it so far.
Why those particular exponentials on the critical synthetic X, btw? The selection of those strikes as unnecessary since I see no correlative fit with X - i.e., why select a synthetic critical x abscissa cut from whole cloth? Those exponents seem to buy you nothing in terms of correlation...
Otherrwise, it's good to see an active mind applying some analytical tools.
Very perceptive. I expected no less from you sir. :aok The reason is I was trying to scale the weighting between S/W, P/W, and P. Without the exponents I thought S/W*P/W*P gave too much impact to P/W and P, and not enough to S/W. Your right, it doesn't change the shape by a whole bunch, but it did increase the spread a bit.
-
I was thinking representative and enlightening... :D
I was thinking tedious and exhausting :D.
-
I'd refer you to USAF tactical/Bad Boy E-M diagrams. In any given matchup and per the E-M, one opponent can be classified as the energy fighter, the other the angles fighter. See, for ref: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=96366.15
In this first example, the A-5 is clearly the energy fighter, the Spit V the angles fighter. Sometimes, however, distinguishing can be tricky, depending on how the E-M overlaps. Non e of this diminishes the value of the E-M though.
my memory is shot or I would site were I read about energy fighting.
to many diagrams just confuse most people, I am far from an expert in the numbers and what not, but I do know what works, not from reading diagrams and charts, but from fighting the red hoard.
I know if you think about something to much it just makes it more difficult...whats that old acronym.... K.I.S.S.
I know many here that can site so much more info on planes and numbers then I.....their head is full of info, they can tell ya anything about any plane in the hanger......but still can not put into practice and die just as easily as a two week noob.
then make some excuse why they died or ran as soon as they lost "advantage"
Kinda reminds me of Bruce Lee and the way he trained and fought and lived......."no style as style" "If you spend too much time thinking about something, you'll never achieve it"
-
Kinda reminds me of Bruce Lee and the way he trained and fought and lived......."no style as style" "If you spend too much time thinking about something, you'll never achieve it"
Sport is a good analogy. I do some competition still in the USTA and I'm always wracked by this continuum - one end of which is all adventure/study the other of which is all action no study. The risk on one side is never getting a confident playing style, the other settling into a groove of no surprises. We all find our point on the continuum - and if we find it right it's an effective one. I will say, your battles versus the red horde speaks well for your intuitive approach.
Myself, I think it is very difficult to remember, for example, the corner speed of any opponent you might encounter. However, knowing that the Ki-84 with flaps has a decisive flat turn advantage over Mr. Spitty untill he pops flaps is useful. I try to shorthand stuff like that from the E-M's. I can't fly with my nose down to the gages either.
-
Okay Tango so I have come up with something pretty simply yet valid imo.
Three basic metrics in regards to Guns -
Ballistic Rating (The difficulty in which the given ammo is to aim with in combination with lethality)
Ammo Quantity
Visibility
Of these three they are weighted based on my perceived gauge of their importance in a total of 10 parts and are as follows:
Ballistic Rating: 5 parts
Ammo Quantity: 3 parts
Visibility: 2 parts
So with 10 parts, ballistic rating is worth 50% of the weight, ammo quantity 30% of the weight, visibility 20% of the weight. If these can be agreed upon then we can move on to next step. :D
Now we have to rate each of the previous 3 with a rank of 1 to 10, 1 being the absolute worse, 10 being the absolute best. And we then take the ratio of their score out of 10 divided by 10 for their Ranked Ratio.
Now to calculate an airplane's ballistic score you apply in following equation: (Ballistic Ratio)^(Ballistic Ranked Ratio) + (Ammo Quantity Ratio)^(Ammo Quantity Ranked Ratio) + (Visilibilty)^(Visibility Ranked Ratio)
We now need to determine what our Base 1.0 aircraft is. I believe this to be the P51D. This is how I rank it: 8 of 10 for ballistic, 8 of 10 for quantity 9 of 10 for visibility
Net Score = (5/10)^(8/10) + (3/10)^(8/10) + (2/10)^(9/10) = 1.19
All other planes ratios are taken off of this 1.19
So for the K4 I rank it: 5 of 10 for ballistic, 7 of 10 for quantity, 7 of 10 for visibility
Net Score = (5/10)^(5/10) + (3/10)^(7/10) + (3/10)^(7/10) = 1.46
Now Take Ratio of Base Aircraft/Test Aircraft = 1.19/1.46 = 0.814
Now take 0.814 reduction of the Bf109K4 from the X and Y axis of Dtango's chart to "correct" its performance based on ballistics.
This can be done for all aircraft and will be pretty accurate if we can agree on reasonable ranked values for each aircraft. The most sensitive inputs will be the ranked inputs of the P51D if it is playing the role of our Base Aircraft as well as the weighted ranked of the three metrics I described at the beginning of this post.
Another example: Tempest would rank 10 for ballistic rating, 10 for visibility and 8 for ammo quantity. Its base rating is 1.08. 1.19/1.08 = 1.1 which is then multipled to the X and Y axis and Tempest becomes 10% "more easy".
P38: 9 for ballistic rating, 9 for visibility, 10 for ammo quantity, Ratio = 1.11
Ta152: 6 for ballistic rating, 8 for visibility, 10 for ammo quantity, Ratio = 0.963
The adjustments relative to the metrics on the axis are a little too high though so perhaps cutting them in half would adjust more reasonable. So the K4 instead of a .81 ratio has a 1-((1-.81)/2)=0.905
Tempest 1.05 instead of 1.11, etc.
-
I quite agree. However does noobage-ness = "EZ"? IMHO, they aren't the same thing.
My understanding was that the this was for the 'average MA player'. The average MA player has a k/d around .5 (according to snailman's findings). Secondly, noobage-ness == EZ because I translated 'EZ' as requires less skill to fly.
-
Okay Tango so I have come up with something pretty simply yet valid imo.
Three basic metrics in regards to Guns -
Ballistic Rating (The difficulty in which the given ammo is to aim with in combination with lethality)
Ammo Quantity
Visibility
Of these three they are weighted based on my perceived gauge of their importance in a total of 10 parts and are as follows:
Ballistic Rating: 5 parts
Ammo Quantity: 3 parts
Visibility: 2 parts
So with 10 parts, ballistic rating is worth 50% of the weight, ammo quantity 30% of the weight, visibility 20% of the weight. If these can be agreed upon then we can move on to next step. :D
Now we have to rate each of the previous 3 with a rank of 1 to 10, 1 being the absolute worse, 10 being the absolute best. And we then take the ratio of their score out of 10 divided by 10 for their Ranked Ratio.
Now to calculate an airplane's ballistic score you apply in following equation: (Ballistic Ratio)^(Ballistic Ranked Ratio) + (Ammo Quantity Ratio)^(Ammo Quantity Ranked Ratio) + (Visilibilty)^(Visibility Ranked Ratio)
We now need to determine what our Base 1.0 aircraft is. I believe this to be the P51D. This is how I rank it: 8 of 10 for ballistic, 8 of 10 for quantity 9 of 10 for visibility
Net Score = (5/10)^(8/10) + (3/10)^(8/10) + (2/10)^(9/10) = 1.19
All other planes ratios are taken off of this 1.19
So for the K4 I rank it: 5 of 10 for ballistic, 7 of 10 for quantity, 7 of 10 for visibility
Net Score = (5/10)^(5/10) + (3/10)^(7/10) + (3/10)^(7/10) = 1.46
Now Take Ratio of Base Aircraft/Test Aircraft = 1.19/1.46 = 0.814
Now take 0.814 reduction of the Bf109K4 from the X and Y axis of Dtango's chart to "correct" its performance based on ballistics.
This can be done for all aircraft and will be pretty accurate if we can agree on reasonable ranked values for each aircraft. The most sensitive inputs will be the ranked inputs of the P51D if it is playing the role of our Base Aircraft as well as the weighted ranked of the three metrics I described at the beginning of this post.
Another example: Tempest would rank 10 for ballistic rating, 10 for visibility and 8 for ammo quantity. Its base rating is 1.08. 1.19/1.08 = 1.1 which is then multipled to the X and Y axis and Tempest becomes 10% "more easy".
P38: 9 for ballistic rating, 9 for visibility, 10 for ammo quantity, Ratio = 1.11
Ta152: 6 for ballistic rating, 8 for visibility, 10 for ammo quantity, Ratio = 0.963
The adjustments relative to the metrics on the axis are a little too high though so perhaps cutting them in half would adjust more reasonable. So the K4 instead of a .81 ratio has a 1-((1-.81)/2)=0.905
Tempest 1.05 instead of 1.11, etc.
no way.. :old: .the K$ numbers are more like
3 of 10 for ballistic, 3 of 10 for quantity, 5 of 10 for visibility...
-
Three basic metrics in regards to Guns -
Ballistic Rating (The difficulty in which the given ammo is to aim with in combination with lethality)
Ammo Quantity
Visibility
Can you define visibility? Just wanted make sure I understand.
The gunnery adjustment algorithm seems fine to me. Personally, the less arbitrary the better. This seems to be on the more-arbitrary end of the spectrum but what the hay. I'll provide the spreadsheet when I get a chance (probably later this PM) and you can go fill out the gunnery adjustments.
The adjustments relative to the metrics on the axis are a little too high though so perhaps cutting them in half would adjust more reasonable. So the K4 instead of a .81 ratio has a 1-((1-.81)/2)=0.905
Tempest 1.05 instead of 1.11, etc.
Yeah, I'd want to think about that a bit, both a) which axis it changes (x,y,both) and b) how much weight do you give the ratio as you've alluded to.
-
no way.. :old: .the K$ numbers are more like
3 of 10 for ballistic, 3 of 10 for quantity, 5 of 10 for visibility...
Actually I agree with INK...the K4 is for crap in exactly those areas. Also, the 51Deltas viz is a 10
-
Actually I agree with INK...the K4 is for crap in exactly those areas. Also, the 51Deltas viz is a 10
say it aint so..... :D
-
no way.. :old: .the K$ numbers are more like
3 of 10 for ballistic, 3 of 10 for quantity, 5 of 10 for visibility...
See what I mean about the arbitrariness? I dread using virtual pilot anecdotes for performance as much as I do historical anecdotes :).
-
IIRC the energy numbers used on the gonzoville charts were the reduction in speed from top speed at XXXX k, turn engine off, time to XXXX kts. Not very scientific, but at least a start. I like the ratios on armament. How are you all looking at determining "energy"? Seems to me Drag C/D and a bunch of things outside of my engineering background.
-
See what I mean about the arbitrariness? I dread using virtual pilot anecdotes for performance as much as I do historical anecdotes :).
you could use the fps of the trajectory as a way to classify 'ease to aim'.
-
I'm actually pretty intrigued with the system Grizz has suggested to alter the plane placement in dtango's chart with. It would be pretty reasonable to set up a java [or something] applet online with the planes in their respective places as ordained by dtango's original methods, and then have sliders at the bottom for visibility, ballistics, and qty. Click a plane's dot to select it, move the sliders from 1-10 in your opinionated leisure, then post the results. It'd be neat to see how people's perception's vary.
Or an additional change could be to give the user the ability to hold and drag the plane dots around, for a more individualized graph.
-
you could use the fps of the trajectory as a way to classify 'ease to aim'.
Hey, that's more my style :), .....but the math to do all that gets way more complicated than my way of simply multiplying "random" aero ratios together :D.
-
I'm actually pretty intrigued with the system Grizz has suggested to alter the plane placement in dtango's chart with. It would be pretty reasonable to set up a java [or something] applet online with the planes in their respective places as ordained by dtango's original methods, and then have sliders at the bottom for visibility, ballistics, and qty. Click a plane's dot to select it, move the sliders from 1-10 in your opinionated leisure, then post the results. It'd be neat to see how people's perception's vary.
Or an additional change could be to give the user the ability to hold and drag the plane dots around, for a more individualized graph.
Intriguing. I've left my programming days in the dust though. Not enough braincells left for that. I leave the coading to the coaders :). But if someone wants to have it, hey more power to them!
-
Can you define visibility? Just wanted make sure I understand.
I define visibility as basically how much deflection visibility you have in the cockpit, or how the cockpit obstructions impede your ability to aim.
-
no way.. :old: .the K$ numbers are more like
3 of 10 for ballistic, 3 of 10 for quantity, 5 of 10 for visibility...
TBH i was trying to be generous with my numbers so the haters didn't accuse me of being biased. I don't think they are as low as you have listed them though. 65 taters is plenty if you fire them correctly, which i kind of tie into ballistics. It would not be fair to give it a 3 for quantity when you have planes like the Yak9T and Yak9U that have certainly worse quantities.
-
TBH i was trying to be generous with my numbers so the haters didn't accuse me of being biased.
I know that is why I :old: you back to reality :D
-
Intriguing. I've left my programming days in the dust though. Not enough braincells left for that. I leave the coading to the coaders :). But if someone wants to have it, hey more power to them!
Could you PM me the excel doc you created? :)
-
Could you PM me the excel doc you created? :)
Would be happy to. It'll have to be later this evening when I get home.
-
My understanding was that the this was for the 'average MA player'. The average MA player has a k/d around .5 (according to snailman's findings). Secondly, noobage-ness == EZ because I translated 'EZ' as requires less skill to fly.
Been meaning to reply to this Ardy. Assume we put two average Joe MA k/d .5 players into AH Sweet 16’s: one in a I-16, the other in a Spit-16. Assuming the only skill they have is yanking back on the stick & chasing the other guy around a circle like the proverbial dog-and-tail routine, who wins? My bet: very high odds the Spit-16 wins each and every friggin’ time. Why?
The sustained round & round, dog-chasing-tail turn-fight is nothing more than a nose-to-tail/2-circle fight. In a 2-circle fight higher turn rate dictates advantage, not smaller turn radius. For a discourse on this see the following: Which Way Do I Turn? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,253819.0.html)
Sustained turn rate is determined by airplane specific excess power (Ps). The greater the Ps in maneuver, the higher the turn rate. Steady rate of climb is essentially a measure of an airplane’s specific excess power at 1g load-factor.
From the AH ROC compare tool the Spit16 outclimbs the I-16 by a gi-normous margin- 4760 fpm vs 2870 fpm. The Spit-16 has more than 1.5x’s the Ps for maneuver vs. the I-16 meaning the Spit16 probably has the higher turn rate. In a yank the stick back ‘round ‘round dog-chase-tail 2 circle fight, higher turn rate wins.
-
Okay Tango so I have come up with something pretty simply yet valid imo.
Three basic metrics in regards to Guns -
Ballistic Rating (The difficulty in which the given ammo is to aim with in combination with lethality)
Ammo Quantity
Visibility
Of these three they are weighted based on my perceived gauge of their importance in a total of 10 parts and are as follows:
Ballistic Rating: 5 parts
Ammo Quantity: 3 parts
Visibility: 2 parts
So with 10 parts, ballistic rating is worth 50% of the weight, ammo quantity 30% of the weight, visibility 20% of the weight. If these can be agreed upon then we can move on to next step. :D
I'm not sure I'd agree with this as it stands,while ballistics are very important I'd think the actual ammo amount would have a larger impact.
Think if you had 2 or 3 hundred 30mm rounds,even with it's terrible ballistics you'd have more chances of scoring kills.So if I was going to agree with you I'd want to see ammo count and ballistics as being equal,40% ballistics,40% ammo and 20% vis.
Look at the P47 vs P51,use max loadout for both,dont you think that extra 1000 or so rounds makes a difference? Yes the 47 has 2 more guns but I still think I made my point.
:salute
-
Ok, a few things. At the risk of sounding like an idiot, what does ^ mean in your equation, and what is the necessity of the ranked ratio? On the topic of visibility, the "page-up" ability to look over the nose makes aiming in some planes much easier. While a P-40 may seem like it has about an equal visibility or atleast reasonably close to that of a P-51, the Pony driver can look over his nose much much farther to see the enemy plane for a shot.
-
I'm not sure I'd agree with this as it stands,while ballistics are very important I'd think the actual ammo amount would have a larger impact.
Think if you had 2 or 3 hundred 30mm rounds,even with it's terrible ballistics you'd have more chances of scoring kills.So if I was going to agree with you I'd want to see ammo count and ballistics as being equal,40% ballistics,40% ammo and 20% vis.
Look at the P47 vs P51,use max loadout for both,dont you think that extra 1000 or so rounds makes a difference? Yes the 47 has 2 more guns but I still think I made my point.
:salute
That is fair and I agree. I almost made it that 4 4 2 ratio to begin with but I have a moment of weakness and made it 5 3 2. Thanks for keeping me honest.
-
Ok, a few things. At the risk of sounding like an idiot, what does ^ mean in your equation, and what is the necessity of the ranked ratio? On the topic of visibility, the "page-up" ability to look over the nose makes aiming in some planes much easier. While a P-40 may seem like it has about an equal visibility or atleast reasonably close to that of a P-51, the Pony driver can look over his nose much much farther to see the enemy plane for a shot.
Sometimes you have to take a risk. ^ Means to the power. 2^3=8. I like the exponents because it gives less dispersion than a linear one, making it more fair Imo. Ranked Ratio is required to give a plane rank based on the three metrics I listed.
Visibility should take into account the ability to page up over nose. So, the mossy should have great visibility.
-
Sometimes you have to take a risk. ^ Means to the power. 2^3=8. I like the exponents because it gives less dispersion than a linear one, making it more fair Imo. Ranked Ratio is required to give a plane rank based on the three metrics I listed.
Visibility should take into account the ability to page up over nose. So, the mossy should have great visibility.
or the ability to slid your views way over like in the spits.
I really think 3 metrics are just not enough for a true comparison.
-
Hey, that's more my style :), .....but the math to do all that gets way more complicated than my way of simply multiplying "random" aero ratios together :D.
well comparing fps isn't that complicated, if your talking about comparing fps and say parabolic distribution of the projectile then it is.
I believe at one point I saw a chart that had the fps of the most common guns in AH.
I suppose if one had a lot of time to find all the info, one could use the BC (balistics coefficient) too, as a measure of the viable 'range' of the weapon.
I call it 'viable range' because at some point the aiming becomes too difficult that the odds of making the shot drop off drastically due to the arc the shooter has to shoot at and the limited time the shooter has to place his shot (the shooter is hopefully shooting at a moving airplane from an airplane, he can't break out with a calculator and calculate the exact amount of angle needed to make the shot).
-
Also, the 51Deltas viz is a 10
Really??? I guess that would make the F4U-1A, and P-38's, etc. all like +11 or more on the Spinal Tap scale then! I'd expect nothing less from an okie :neener:.
-
That is fair and I agree. I almost made it that 4 4 2 ratio to begin with but I have a moment of weakness and made it 5 3 2. Thanks for keeping me honest.
Grizz what might be interesting would be to see how the planes match up using both ratio's,sure it's more work but I'd be interested to see if there would be much difference. To make it somewhat easier maybe just use 4 or 5 of the popular rides and use both ratios and see how the whole thing come out of the wash!
This might give you a better idea of which way is best,for all I know your 5,3,2 is a better ratio than my 4,4,2. Only an example of both would give us something to go on.
:salute
PS: wasnt trying to keep you honest,just thought ammo count was a bigger factor,if you shot like I do you need all the ammo you can carry... :devil
-
Grizz what might be interesting would be to see how the planes match up using both ratio's,sure it's more work but I'd be interested to see if there would be much difference. To make it somewhat easier maybe just use 4 or 5 of the popular rides and use both ratios and see how the whole thing come out of the wash!
This might give you a better idea of which way is best,for all I know your 5,3,2 is a better ratio than my 4,4,2. Only an example of both would give us something to go on.
:salute
PS: wasnt trying to keep you honest,just thought ammo count was a bigger factor,if you shot like I do you need all the ammo you can carry... :devil
:rofl
Grizz hasn't shot the way we mere mortals shoot since he was in a crib :furious
its funny when I am fighting the hoard I hear my self think damn you bastages if I had Grizz aim :old:
:rofl
-
Sometimes you have to take a risk. ^ Means to the power. 2^3=8. I like the exponents because it gives less dispersion than a linear one, making it more fair Imo. Ranked Ratio is required to give a plane rank based on the three metrics I listed.
Visibility should take into account the ability to page up over nose. So, the mossy should have great visibility.
Ok, I see how the exponents just make the numbers closer together while still being the same relative distance apart. And on the ranked rating thing- all I have to say is that was a brain fart. The first couple times I looked at it I thought the "Ballistic Ratio", for example, meant the rating you gave it, not the 50% of the overall gunnery score that it actually does correlate to. Thanks for clearing those things up. One thing I do disagree with is how this would be implemented onto the data. Moving the points at a 45* angle would screw up the other measurements for the particular plane. For example, I'm estimating that the relative ease of gunnery on the F4U-1 and the difficulty of gunning in the La-5 would move the points to where it would appear that the La-5 has a faster max speed at sea level.
-
Ok, I see how the exponents just make the numbers closer together while still being the same relative distance apart. And on the ranked rating thing- all I have to say is that was a brain fart. The first couple times I looked at it I thought the "Ballistic Ratio", for example, meant the rating you gave it, not the 50% of the overall gunnery score that it actually does correlate to. Thanks for clearing those things up. One thing I do disagree with is how this would be implemented onto the data. Moving the points at a 45* angle would screw up the other measurements for the particular plane. For example, I'm estimating that the relative ease of gunnery on the F4U-1 and the difficulty of gunning in the La-5 would move the points to where it would appear that the La-5 has a faster max speed at sea level.
Yes, which kind of how we are struggling implementing this because after you adjust for ballistics the X and Y axis names become meaningless. It might even be better just to give a Y Axis Score, and an X axis score, then explain somewhere else how the scores are calculated.
-
Yes, which kind of how we are struggling implementing this because after you adjust for ballistics the X and Y axis names become meaningless. It might even be better just to give a Y Axis Score, and an X axis score, then explain somewhere else how the scores are calculated.
to truly understand I think you need more "qualities" 3 aspects out of what 10 or more? just don't cut it...
first i think it needs to be decided~discussed WHAT aspects should be factored in, once that is done, why cant you just give those aspects a % of the over all "score" and from there just take raw data and some math....dont ask me to do the math though....and bingo you have a chart that shows unbiased results
not in any way saying anyone's chart is or was biased , but they need more then 2 or 3 of the qualities that make a dogfighter.
-
Hey, that's more my style :), .....but the math to do all that gets way more complicated than my way of simply multiplying "random" aero ratios together :D.
As long as you end up with the 109K being the hardest to use, it's all good. :banana: :noid :bolt:
-
I define visibility as basically how much deflection visibility you have in the cockpit, or how the cockpit obstructions impede your ability to aim.
In other words, "How can I define it to make the Bf109 rate poorly?"
-
:rofl
Grizz hasn't shot the way we mere mortals shoot since he was in a crib :furious
its funny when I am fighting the hoard I hear my self think damn you bastages if I had Grizz aim :old:
:rofl
Oh I hear you on this one Ink,a couple of frames ago in FSO I saw I was getting hits,rare for me,and I got so target fixated that I flew into the hurrie as it blew up! :x :x :x Sure I can fly almost every plane in the hanger but I'd trade half them for a 2 or 3 % increase in hit percentage. This is something that cant be factored in,even a mediocre pilot that shoots well will be more successful that a great stick that cant shoot.
:salute
PS: plz dont infer that I think I'm a great stick,at best I'm mediocre and still cant shoot for beans.
-
:rofl Grizz hasn't shot the way we mere mortals shoot since he was in a crib :furious
its funny when I am fighting the hoard I hear my self think damn you bastages if I had Grizz aim :old:
:rofl
QFT... I out fly 99% of the players, but my gunnery... it's the suxxorz, at least percentage-wise. I get my fair share of awesome shots, but they're far outweighed by the amount of lead I spray. :furious
Free tip (and I'm serious): the best way to survive an encounter with me is on my dead 12, nice and level-ish. :noid
This is what truly separated myself from someone like Levi... his gunnery was so much better, our flying was slightly weighted in his favor. And he excelled in furballs, whereas I'm more a lonewolf on the fringe.
-
QFT... I out fly 99% of the players, but my gunnery... it's the suxxorz, at least percentage-wise. I get my fair share of awesome shots, but they're far outweighed by the amount of lead I spray. :furious
Free tip (and I'm serious): the best way to survive an encounter with me is on my dead 12, nice and level-ish. :noid
This is what truly separated myself from someone like Levi... his gunnery was so much better, our flying was slightly weighted in his favor. And he excelled in furballs, whereas I'm more a lonewolf on the fringe.
after about 6 years I finally have worked my hit % up in the 7% range, I know I can fly with the best of them, hell I have beatin a lot of the "top tier" sticks,(if not all of them at one point or other) but guys like Grizz, Krup, bruv.....all great shots that I want to strangle :rofl not really at least for Grizz and Krup......... na im kidding Bruv....you know though ultimately I don't care about being the "best" I just want to be the best I can be, I am a very competitive guy though so fighting guys like them get me all hyped up haha...also I don't mean they are the only great sticks in Game...they are just the top three off my head...
I think I should a taken ya up on that DA offer, we will have to go give each other some target practice :salute
Oh I hear you on this one Ink,a couple of frames ago in FSO I saw I was getting hits,rare for me,and I got so target fixated that I flew into the hurrie as it blew up! :x :x :x Sure I can fly almost every plane in the hanger but I'd trade half them for a 2 or 3 % increase in hit percentage. This is something that cant be factored in,even a mediocre pilot that shoots well will be more successful that a great stick that cant shoot.
:salute
PS: plz dont infer that I think I'm a great stick,at best I'm mediocre and still cant shoot for beans.
dood...bro....buddy...I flew into a AFK plane guns blasting away and missed every bullet, only to collide with him and me go down.... :rofl...and that was last week :O
I don't remember what ace said it but one was quoted as saying the better shot will almost always win over the better stick, who was it? anyone know?
-
Ok, thenthe first step will be to compile a list of plane qualities and rate their importance, which will be difficult to say the least.
-
In other words, "How can I define it to make the Bf109 rate poorly?"
Or in other words, "How can I define it to make the Mossy rate really EZ to irritate Karnak?". :angel:
-
to truly understand I think you need more "qualities" 3 aspects out of what 10 or more? just don't cut it...
first i think it needs to be decided~discussed WHAT aspects should be factored in, once that is done, why cant you just give those aspects a % of the over all "score" and from there just take raw data and some math....dont ask me to do the math though....and bingo you have a chart that shows unbiased results
not in any way saying anyone's chart is or was biased , but they need more then 2 or 3 of the qualities that make a dogfighter.
That's cool, I can add more and their respective weight in regards to my original three. Which others do you propose are added in regards to guns?
-
That's cool, I can add more and their respective weight in regards to my original three. Which others do you propose are added in regards to guns?
rate of fire,weight of guns/ammo.
:salute
-
Ok, thenthe first step will be to compile a list of plane qualities and rate their importance, which will be difficult to say the least.
it shouldn't be that difficult, but you are right that's what needs to be done`to get the best most accurate unbiased results.
so Ill start, first I would think this is about "dog fighting" and not dropping bombs or that sort of stuff, so that type of info does not need to be equated in.
max speed at low, med, high, ALTs these three like "lethality" combined to make up one %age of over all score.
max turn radius at best speed,
max dive speed
min speed for flap usage
minimum stall speed
visibility for SA
lethality of guns (should be broken down to three aspects ballistics, amount of ammo, visibility for firing)
acceleration
that is 8 aspects of info that is already compiled
anything I miss?
rate of fire,weight of guns/ammo.
:salute
I dont think weight of guns play a part in it, isn't that included in the weight of plane?
That's cool, I can add more and their respective weight in regards to my original three. Which others do you propose are added in regards to guns?
I think you are dead on where the guns should be equated, those three should make up the "lethality" aspect/ratio
also I am not sure say the importance of each ratio...
gonna guess
speed being the highest weighted ratio
lethality next
best instantaneous turn rate next
min flap speed next
the rest I am not so sure...hell I am not sure if those are in the right order :rofl
-
it shouldn't be that difficult, but you are right that's what needs to be done`to get the best most accurate unbiased results.
so Ill start, first I would think this is about "dog fighting" and not dropping bombs or that sort of stuff, so that type of info does not need to be equated in.
max speed at low, med, high, ALTs
max turn radius at best speed,
max dive speed
min speed for flap usage
minimum stall speed
visibility for SA
lethality of guns (should be broken down to three aspects ballistics, amount of ammo, visibility for firing)
acceleration
that is 8 aspects of info that is already compiled
anything I miss?
Eek. If we added all of this it would almost make more sense to only use dtango's graph to calculate an aircrafts performance score, which would be worth a significant percentage of the overall score. Dtango, can your performance scores somehow be normalized on a scale to 10, with whatever the best plane is as a 10?
-
Eek. If we added all of this it would almost make more sense to only use dtango's graph to calculate an aircrafts performance score, which would be worth a significant percentage of the overall score. Dtango, can your performance scores somehow be normalized on a scale to 10, with whatever the best plane is as a 10?
:rofl
maybe drop "visability" for SA
but don't ya think every thing else plays a part on the out come of a dogfight?
or at least could play a part, due to the fact that some players are just better sticks so the fight does not always last long enough to go though all these aspects.
-
:rofl
maybe drop "visability" for SA
but don't ya think every thing else plays a part on the out come of a dogfight?
or at least could play a part, due to the fact that some players are just better sticks so the fight does not always last long enough to go though all these aspects.
They are all factors, but some of those are really small factors compared to the big ones so even if a plane was really good or really sucked at one of the less important metrics it wouldn't matter too much.
-
Or in other words, "How can I define it to make the Mossy rate really EZ to irritate Karnak?". :angel:
No, that isn't what you mean. You are taking "visibility" and narrowly defining it in the way that makes the Bf109 as "hard mode" as you can to make yourself look good.
The Mossie has, cockpitwise, better views than the Bf109, no doubt, but visibility isn't just about over the nose shots. That is "over the nose view", visibility refers to the ability to see what is happening around you. It ranges from poor in something like the Il-2 to very good in something like the I-16. There are even things that affect it beyond the cockpit shape and framing. The Bf110, P-38 and Mosquito have more airframe obstructions than the Spitfire or Bf109.
I would say the Bf109K-4's over the nose view is poor, but its visibility is average or above average.
-
No, that isn't what you mean. You are taking "visibility" and narrowly defining it in the way that makes the Bf109 as "hard mode" as you can to make yourself look good.
The Mossie has, cockpitwise, better views than the Bf109, no doubt, but visibility isn't just about over the nose shots. That is "over the nose view", visibility refers to the ability to see what is happening around you. It ranges from poor in something like the Il-2 to very good in something like the I-16. There are even things that affect it beyond the cockpit shape and framing. The Bf110, P-38 and Mosquito have more airframe obstructions than the Spitfire or Bf109.
I would say the Bf109K-4's over the nose view is poor, but its visibility is average or above average.
Well I did rank it a 7 out of 10 (10 being the best visibility you can have) for visibility which is pretty decent. What would you have ranked it?
-
I don't remember what ace said it but one was quoted as saying the better shot will almost always win over the better stick, who was it? anyone know?
I know what you're talking about, was thinking the same thing. The best two I could find on short notice was these two, but I suspect it was an LW pilot who was talking about how, if the pilot were an exceptional shot, it changed everything:
Good flying never killed [an enemy] yet.
— attributed to Major Edward 'Mick' Mannock
The most important thing in fighting was shooting, next the various tactics in coming into a fight and last of all flying ability itself.
— Lt. Colonel W. A. 'Billy' Bishop
I'm barely doing 4% with 20 and 12.7s...
-
Eek. If we added all of this it would almost make more sense to only use dtango's graph to calculate an aircrafts performance score, which would be worth a significant percentage of the overall score. Dtango, can your performance scores somehow be normalized on a scale to 10, with whatever the best plane is as a 10?
What ink is asking for is an EM diagram mixed up with a bunch of other stuff :). I'd rather not try that for all sorts of reasons. Gotta go work on the old house to get it ready for closing. Will be back later this PM.
-
No, that isn't what you mean. You are taking "visibility" and narrowly defining it in the way that makes the Bf109 as "hard mode" as you can to make yourself look good.
And in regards to my "visibility" definition, it only has to do with aiming visibility. Look at my three guns related metrics. That is why visibility is so narrowly defined. If we were going to add an all encompassing evaluation of the planes then overall visibility like you describe would have to be considered.
-
No, that isn't what you mean. You are taking "visibility" and narrowly defining it in the way that makes the Bf109 as "hard mode" as you can to make yourself look good.
The Mossie has, cockpitwise, better views than the Bf109, no doubt, but visibility isn't just about over the nose shots. That is "over the nose view", visibility refers to the ability to see what is happening around you. It ranges from poor in something like the Il-2 to very good in something like the I-16. There are even things that affect it beyond the cockpit shape and framing. The Bf110, P-38 and Mosquito have more airframe obstructions than the Spitfire or Bf109.
I would say the Bf109K-4's over the nose view is poor, but its visibility is average or above average.
lets take away visibility from it, I don't think any MA regular would lose a fight due to visibility....
They are all factors, but some of those are really small factors compared to the big ones so even if a plane was really good or really sucked at one of the less important metrics it wouldn't matter too much.
so the factors that are not so important would have less of a weight ratio, getting rid of visability brings it down to 7, give every thing a 10% ratio except speed and lethality they would get 15%
I really think if we truly want to quantify "easy" "hard" mode unbiased, this is the way.
No, that isn't what you mean. You are taking "visibility" and narrowly defining it in the way that makes the Bf109 as "hard mode" as you can to make yourself look good.
The Mossie has, cockpitwise, better views than the Bf109, no doubt, but visibility isn't just about over the nose shots. That is "over the nose view", visibility refers to the ability to see what is happening around you. It ranges from poor in something like the Il-2 to very good in something like the I-16. There are even things that affect it beyond the cockpit shape and framing. The Bf110, P-38 and Mosquito have more airframe obstructions than the Spitfire or Bf109.
I would say the Bf109K-4's over the nose view is poor, but its visibility is average or above average.
I would like to think I have gotten to know Grizz pretty darn good,I find him to be a Honest, straight up guy, I would be shocked to find out he would purposefully skew data to make him self look good...nope no friggin way.
-
Before this goes any further down this path, I'll just say that it was a 7/10 is a very conservative rating for visibility on the K4. IMO, it's more like 5. Anyway, maybe make one axis on this ultimate plane comparison graph dealing with performance, based off of Dtango's original graph. i.e. the Tempest in the upper right would be a 19/20, while the P-40B in the bottom left would be closer to 2 or 3/20. Then the other axis would deal with the business end of the planes. This would, however, weigh the armament equally with performance, so any suggestions on how to alter that to make it a little more balanced?
-
I know what you're talking about, was thinking the same thing. The best two I could find on short notice was these two, but I suspect it was an LW pilot who was talking about how, if the pilot were an exceptional shot, it changed everything:
Good flying never killed [an enemy] yet.
— attributed to Major Edward 'Mick' Mannock
The most important thing in fighting was shooting, next the various tactics in coming into a fight and last of all flying ability itself.
— Lt. Colonel W. A. 'Billy' Bishop
I'm barely doing 4% with 20 and 12.7s...
that sounds about right, good find :aok
-
Before this goes any further down this path, I'll just say that it was a 7/10 is a very conservative rating for visibility on the K4. IMO, it's more like 5. Anyway, maybe make one axis on this ultimate plane comparison graph dealing with performance, based off of Dtango's original graph. i.e. the Tempest in the upper right would be a 19/20, while the P-40B in the bottom left would be closer to 2 or 3/20. Then the other axis would deal with the business end of the planes. This would, however, weigh the armament equally with performance, so any suggestions on how to alter that to make it a little more balanced?
I'm putting my two week notice in tomorrow at work to commit full time to this project. :devil
-
TBH, I'm not sure if a scatter plot is the correct way of looking at this. I think the matrix that snail had posted a link to was the right approach, letting the user modify values and then it ranks the plane accordingly, but I don't believe them to have all the required values to make an informed evaluation. I'll have to mull this over.
-
I dont think weight of guns play a part in it, isn't that included in the weight of plane?
I think you are dead on where the guns should be equated, those three should make up the "lethality" aspect/ratio
Ink,I was thinking along the lines of all things being equal,rate of fire/weight of fire,meaning the weight of the rounds in a given time,say 1 second,then if 1 gun type is lighter than the other the lighter gun would be better as opposed to a heavier gun.
Take the German Mk 101 30 mm and compare it to the Mk 103,both fire the same rounds basically but the Mk103 is much lighter than the Mk101 so therefore the better weapon. I'm sure there are other comparrisons that are close,look at the Russian 12.7 vs the US 50 cal as an example.
Your correct that it is included in the plane's weight but I was still looking to answer Grizz's question of other factors to include in the weapons part!
And maybe just poking a stick in the cowpie while I'm at it. :devil
:salute
-
I forgot one....Durability
I dont think weight of guns play a part in it, isn't that included in the weight of plane?
I think you are dead on where the guns should be equated, those three should make up the "lethality" aspect/ratio
Ink,I was thinking along the lines of all things being equal,rate of fire/weight of fire,meaning the weight of the rounds in a given time,say 1 second,then if 1 gun type is lighter than the other the lighter gun would be better as opposed to a heavier gun.
Take the German Mk 101 30 mm and compare it to the Mk 103,both fire the same rounds basically but the Mk103 is much lighter than the Mk101 so therefore the better weapon. I'm sure there are other comparrisons that are close,look at the Russian 12.7 vs the US 50 cal as an example.
Your correct that it is included in the plane's weight but I was still looking to answer Grizz's question of other factors to include in the weapons part!
And maybe just poking a stick in the cowpie while I'm at it. :devil
:salute
damn you :furious I think my head is gonna explode
:D
:salute
-
I think I should a taken ya up on that DA offer, we will have to go give each other some target practice :salute
if you see me on and feeling fiesty. :t
-
if you see me on and feeling fiesty. :t
feelin real fiesty right now...but Ive been up for like 50 hours so not tonight.
-
As long as you end up with the 109K being the hardest to use, it's all good. :banana: :noid :bolt:
In other words, "How can I define it to make the Bf109 rate poorly?"
:D. If mr grizz wants an arbitrary gunnery modifier then by golly I'll give him one if it's simple to do. Whuteva.
But we all know what the score really is ;).
-
:D. If mr grizz wants an arbitrary gunnery modifier then by golly I'll give him one if it's simple to do. Whuteva.
But we all know what the score really is ;).
I quit.
:bolt:
-
I quit.
:bolt:
:D ...oh no you don't! Drag me into putting more gunnery stuff in it and then run-off. :furious I'm already adding the columns for ya.
-
I quit.
:bolt:
YOU CAN'T QUIT!! ALL THE PLANTS WILL DIE!!!
-
:D ...oh no you don't! Drag me into putting more gunnery stuff in it and then run-off. :furious I'm already adding the columns for ya.
You took my honest attempt at taking arbitrary, yet potentially measurable metrics, and sullied it. My ember now gloweth not.
:bolt:
-
You took my honest attempt at taking arbitrary, yet potentially measurable metrics, and sullied it. My member now groweth not.
:bolt:
fixed :rofl :bolt:
<sorry, couldn't resist such a straight lilne.> :neener:
-
:furious
-
LOL that was a real hanging curve you threw Shane there Grizz. Not surprised he powdered it! :)
-
LOL that was a real hanging curve you threw Shane there Grizz. Not surprised he powdered it! :)
I blame the English language's tendency to produce rhymable words, consequently leaving me exposed. I also blame you. It seems to be the in thing.
-
The size of the aircraft. A P38 is a large target whereas a 109 is a small target. It makes a huge difference. You could take that further and look at the size of the target from the dead 6 and then in plan view.
To me, aircraft that are stable at very low speeds or that retain control authority at very high speeds are easier, too. Then there's the speed at which flaps can be deployed and controllability in a stalled or near stalled condition. There are lots of factors that aren't covered. Zoom climb ability is another one that is relevant to this game...How many cup-holders etc.
-
I blame the English language's tendency to produce rhymable words, consequently leaving me exposed. I also blame you. It seems to be the in thing.
What about the plants....ramp up the ember and let's get this easymode BS answered for all time.
Shane and Corky...please leave Grizz alone....if he works on this long enough, it will take him weeks to get proficient shooting taters again. See?
-
Alrighty...had to take some of my lunchtime to complete this...here is the modified excel file. Right click to download it.
Gunnery Adjusted QPM excel 2007 file (http://thetongsweb.net/ah_stuff/plane_qpm_gunnery.xlsx)
I added 4 columns for you guys asking for the stuff: 1)visibility, 2)ballistics, 3)ammo, 4)lethality. You can determine which weighting you want. I just left it at 25%/25%/25%/25% for the time being. Adjust as you wish.
The gunnery modifier algorithm is:
A) Derive a gunnery score based on the above factors.
B) Divide this score by the reference score.
C) adjust this score by a scaling factor (user adjustable, currently set at 1/2).
D) mutliply both the X and Y axis by the modified score.
You just now need to go through and set your reference gunnery score, the weighting factors, scaling factor and go and fill out the visibility, ballistics, ammo, lethality ratings for every airplane. Have fun storming the castle! :D
I stripped out the exponents for my S/W*P/W*P metric to keep it simple. The gunnery modifier section makes up 60% of the spreadsheet :eek:.
-
Will be taking a look at this when I get home tonight dtango.
-
thanks for the PM dtango, will work on a few ideas when college allows.
-
Hey Tango, how bout you stop doing this math crap and get back in the game ;) :D :aok
-
Hey Tango, how bout you stop doing this math crap and get back in the game ;) :D :aok
:D I can't afford it right now. I'm house broke ;). I've even resorted to taking my own lunchee's to work everyday. Thanks for the encouragement though brutha Nef :aok.
-
Infusing the topic with areo-geek maths of power-to-weight, wing-loading, & max level speed...grizz, I see your venn diagram and raise you a....
...Quasi Performance Meter.... :devil
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/QPM1.jpg)
Here's how you read it.....
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/QPM-explain.jpg)
As for "EZ" vs. "hard", here's my take on it :devil :devil :devil
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/QPM-ez.jpg)
Please debate among yourselves...
:aok Happy hat for you!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v38/feather333/lj%20stuff/picard-riker-worf-hat.jpg)
-
:aok Happy hat for you!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v38/feather333/lj%20stuff/picard-riker-worf-hat.jpg)
No, no you've got the wrong metaphor. Star Wars >>>>> Star Trek. They know their physics. Let me help you. This is better.
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/MassAcceleration_Fullpic_1.gif)
-
I played around with the data a little more this weekend. I wasn't able to use the file dtango sent for some reason, so I just used the data from DokGonzo's site and added a few more planes.
This table shows the planes rank ordered for max sea level speed, time to accelerate from 150-200 mph, and best turn radius. The top 10 of each category were highlighted. No planes rank in the top 10 for all three categories. Only 4 planes rank in the top 10 for two categories: the Tempest, La-7, Bf109K-4 and Spit 14.
(http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b475/4fox/planedata.jpg)
I graphed the planes that were highlighted in the table (meaning they were in the top 10 for speed, acceleration, turn radius). I combined acceleration into speed and turn radius to make a 2D graph, instead of the 3D I made before.
(http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b475/4fox/planegraph.jpg)
-
I see an error :old:
the F4U-1A, Yak-9U, and the P51-B all do 358 SL speed yet they are ranked 10 , 11, 12, respectively, they should all be ranked "10" or whatever "358" falls under.
-
I see an error :old:
the F4U-1A, Yak-9U, and the P51-B all do 358 SL speed yet they are ranked 10 , 11, 12, respectively, they should all be ranked "10" or whatever "358" falls under.
actually, I'd think a secondary sorting based on accel would rank them within 358, meaning the hog would drop down below the pony.
-
actually, I'd think a secondary sorting based on accel would rank them within 358, meaning the hog would drop down below the pony.
I agree, but they all should be totaled equally......maybe I am looking at it wrong...if the totals are combined, or what ever math is used, the planes with the same speed is the first equation...so they should be scored equally if the do the same exact speed.....
ahhhhhhhhhhhgggggggggghhhhhhh hhhh this is why I am an artist :o
-
You are correct about the ranking, they should be the same if the attribute is the same. I only did the ranking to narrow the planes down to a manageable number. Originally I had this as a 3D graph, with acceleration on the third axis. The 3d graph is hard to see without being to rotate it, so I attempted to convert it into a 2D graph. To do so I divided speed by acceleration and multiplied best radius times acceleration. The data used to create the graph doesn't have anything to do with the rankings.
-
The Mosquito does 357mph on the deck, not 339. That looks like a speed from the old Mosquito, before it was updated graphically and got its new flight model. I believe it also accelerates/climbs a bit better as well.
-
The numbers I used are dated because they came from DokGonzo's site.
I have made several different graphs trying to see how the 10 best planes compare based on the three categories mentionied before. The graph below shows speed vs turn radius without factoring in acceleration. I haven't cleaned it up, so some of the names overlap.
(http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b475/4fox/speedvsradius.jpg)
I'm not trying to make any claims about which planes are better or which attributes are more important. I simply made some graphs for different planes using data I found and I thought I would post in case anyone finds interesting. I only got the idea because of dtango, so this is all his fault.
-
I'm not trying to make any claims about which planes are better or which attributes are more important.
C'mon, have a take. What's not to enjoy about starting intardnet fights with rabid airplane fanboyz deluded by non-sensical, self inflating opinions of what is or is not "EZ"? ;)
I simply made some graphs for different planes using data I found and I thought I would post in case anyone finds interesting. I only got the idea because of dtango, so this is all his fault.
Yes, you've discovered I make a good substitute as a speed bump for a bus.
Just remember- Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--his own teeth will be set on edge. (Jeremiah 31:30)
:D
-
I agree, but they all should be totaled equally......maybe I am looking at it wrong...if the totals are combined, or what ever math is used, the planes with the same speed is the first equation...so they should be scored equally if the do the same exact speed.....
ahhhhhhhhhhhgggggggggghhhhhhh hhhh this is why I am an artist :o
Drafting, Landscape Design, Irrigation Engineering - all a bunch of fancy terms for sitting on my butt all day only drawing lines, arcs and cirles.
-
Drafting, Landscape Design, Irrigation Engineering - all a bunch of fancy terms for sitting on my butt all day only drawing lines, arcs and cirles.
:D
drafting was fun, I was quite good at that when I was young.
-
Tango,
About the FM arguments and talking about physics in general,
Just a general comment...
Never underestimate the power of idiots in large groups. :D Morons can saturate any BBS if they have the time in their hands to do so. As tragic as it may be. :(
-
They can also fail at their attempts to sound intelligent and profound...let that wash over you a bit.
-
Shhhhhhhhh wmaker....
...you'll wake up the restless natives!!
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/ahangrymob2.jpg)
-
My VennGogh
(http://biblelessonsite.org/images2/starry1.jpg)
-
My VennGogh
:lol :aok
One of my favorite pieces of art of all time.
Since we're sharing art, here's one for ya...
Venn-i, Vici, Venn-ti!
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/napolean.jpg)
-
Holy Java.... thatsa cupola.
-
:D
drafting was fun, I was quite good at that when I was young.
Funny you mention that, I'm good at it, just getting bored with it/life (taught myself, then went to school for a degree in CADD. was always 2-hours late for my 4-hour morning lab, finished all the day's work and homework within one hour, and then spent the rest of the time helping the other students in the class and teaching them tips and tricks. The teacher adamantley preffered that I were around earlier and on-time to helpout teach her class more, but she still gave me at least an A- each quarter, lol)).
I'm starting to volunteer at the local CAF (Camarillo) primarily to feel a bit more productive and get hands-on, but also to get some solid first-hand insight on persuing a second career in aviation. Not sure what, but that's one purpose for my volunteering, get to meet a lot of people, ask a lot of questions, get their opinions, and probabley find out about a bunch of stuff I never knew about before. Haven't met him yet, but looking forward to and am very interested in meeting this one member I've been told about (when asked what I do for a living) that used to be a drafter for Lockheed (he's retired, and I'm not tryign ot get a job, but would love to hear his insights on persuing drafting for aviation).
If that doesn't work out though, then I might need your help learning how to tattoo and bring out my inner creative artist. :aok
-
Funny you mention that, I'm good at it, just getting bored with it/life (taught myself, then went to school for a degree in CADD. was always 2-hours late for my 4-hour morning lab, finished all the day's work and homework within one hour, and then spent the rest of the time helping the other students in the class and teaching them tips and tricks. The teacher adamantley preffered that I were around earlier and on-time to helpout teach her class more, but she still gave me at least an A- each quarter, lol)).
I'm starting to volunteer at the local CAF (Camarillo) primarily to feel a bit more productive and get hands-on, but also to get some solid first-hand insight on persuing a second career in aviation. Not sure what, but that's one purpose for my volunteering, get to meet a lot of people, ask a lot of questions, get their opinions, and probabley find out about a bunch of stuff I never knew about before. Haven't met him yet, but looking forward to and am very interested in meeting this one member I've been told about (when asked what I do for a living) that used to be a drafter for Lockheed (he's retired, and I'm not tryign ot get a job, but would love to hear his insights on persuing drafting for aviation).
If that doesn't work out though, then I might need your help learning how to tattoo and bring out my inner creative artist. :aok
I am not a very good teacher I would have ya watch me ink and say "now do that"...... :rofl
good luck in all your pursuits :salute
-
I've done some thinkin' ...... here is another Venn that should be more accurate.
(http://fatkidatcamp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Venn-Diesel.jpg)
-
I've done some thinkin' ...... here is another Venn that should be more accurate.
(http://fatkidatcamp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Venn-Diesel.jpg)
LOL.